Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

For every atheist making a grammatically incorrect point of never capitalizing the word god, there are a dozen or so theists throwing a fit over people not always capitalizing it, even when doing so is clearly wrong.

1) Evidence?

2) So what? That doesn't change the actual point I was making in the post you quoted.

__________________"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

That's funny. But seriously, though, you know very well what the grammatical rules for names are. So as much as some atheists are so emotional against having anything to do at all with anything those "stupid moron believers" believe in, the whole "not capitalizing God" is nothing but a childish tantrum type of reaction. "I'm not making the effort of hitting the shift key for your stupid 'god' word! Ha!!"

Which is just a typical symptom of what the real problem is: The Us vs Them attitude which I am so repulsed of. The fact that a lot of atheists give atheism a bad name by perpetuating that arrogant attitude that every single believer must be by definition a complete idiot who's not worth wasting time talking to, because "they'll never learn". But those atheists forget that a lot of atheists were once theists themselves (ex: Sir Richard Dawkins), who then went through a process of reflection on their beliefs and realized that there were better explanations for the questions about the Universe and such.

Would you respect a grown-up who told you that they firmly believed in the existence of the Easter Bunny to the extent that it affected their thinking and their lives? You'd probably recommend that they get help. Why do (G)gods get a free pass in the delusion stakes?

Would you respect a grown-up who told you that they firmly believed in the existence of the Easter Bunny to the extent that it affected their thinking and their lives? You'd probably recommend that they get help.

Um... no. Was that the point I was making??? God, it's really impossible to make you understand that that's not what I'm arguing, isn't it?

Do you believe that every single believer is as delusional and as pointless to have an argument with, as the grown up man you exemplified? That's my point.

PS: Oh and by the way, I would probably find it pointless to have a rational discussion with the man you've exemplified, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't "respect" him. Do you believe that you have a free pass to disrespect and insult people and judge them as morons, just because they are delusional about a particular belief, even if they are otherwise good and noble human beings?

__________________"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

All believers are deluded to a greater or lesser extent. There are varying grades of religious mania ranging from the mild to full on carpet chewers.

You have not answered the question. This is not what was asked to you. Of course all believers are deluded to some extent. Nobody is arguing this.

I will ask you the question again until you decide to confront it and answer it:
Do you believe that every single believer is as delusional and as pointless to have an argument with, as the grown up man you exemplified?

__________________"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

You have not answered the question. This is not what was asked to you. Of course all believers are deluded to some extent. Nobody is arguing this.

I will ask you the question again until you decide to confront it and answer it:
Do you believe that every single believer is as delusional and as pointless to have an argument with, as the grown up man you exemplified?

I refer you to my earlier answer regarding grades of religious mania. I don't know any believers, I have no knowledge of believers to guide me, so I cannot answer your question.

I refer you to my earlier answer regarding grades of religious mania. I don't know any believers, I have no knowledge of believers to guide me, so I cannot answer your question.

So you don't know then. Is that your answer? "I don't know if every single believer is as delusional as the ones I've met"? Is this your acceptance that you are in no position to generalize about every single one of them?

And also, what do you mean you don't know any believers? You mean to say you seriously don't know a single person who's a believer? You have never interacted with any of them in person or in the forums????

In the end, what's your position? Why don't you just tell me what your position about believers is? I'd appreciate it if you could do that, instead of playing these games with me where you seem to shy away when I confront you with a question.

__________________"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

No, clearly you don't see, as you are blind as a bat. You can't see your own positions about the subject!

Or do you mean to claim I was wrong about you? Do you not believe that all believers are obtuse minded people with whom a dialogue of any kind is a waste of time?
(I predict you will shy away from answering my question... I cold be wrong, but I have this hunch that you will find a way to avoid answering this question)

__________________"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

No, clearly you don't see, as you are blind as a bat. You can't see your own positions about the subject!

Or do you mean to claim I was wrong about you? Do you not believe that all believers are obtuse minded people with whom a dialogue of any kind is a waste of time?
(I predict you will shy away from answering my question... I cold be wrong, but I have this hunch that you will find a way to avoid answering this question)

I've stated before that believers are like drivers. The good ones are no problem, the bad ones are a hazard to everybody.

However, that doesn't change the question I asked you about that strawman you posted.

I live in a large village in the north of Flanders. It's not like the Bible Belt here. There is a large local Catholic Church and about twenty people attend mass on a Sunday. I genuinely do not not know any religious people. I live in a secular society. The only believers that I come across are here. I don't rule out the possibility that some of my friends and acquaintances are closet believers, but as religion is never discussed here because it plays no part in dally life, I don't know. Let's just say that I would bet a large amount of money that none of them believe in a god.

I do have a hard time thinking that when someone can convince themselves in believing in something that has been shown to them not to be, that that type of thinking they have to have to do that, does not in some way invade all of their other thinking.

Magical thinking begets magical thinking begets........

Paul

__________________For our money "IN WHICH GOD DO YOU TRUST"Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given
Don't accept an answer that can't be questioned - God is SurperfluousA society fails when ignorance outweighs knowledge
Science doesn’t know everything, but religion doesn’t know anythingLife is so horrent and also so beautiful, but without it there is nothing

No I don't think those things are unreasonable discussions. I think they are intelligent explorations of logic.

Not beliefs.

Ex. If I have a discussion about the theoretical possibility of me dying in a car accident while not wearing a seat belt that doesn't mean I walk away from the discussion in tears and panic because I now believe I'm going to die in a car accident if I don't wear my seatbelt.

It seems to me like you're trying to defend other people holding those beliefs as "reasonable". Sure, those discussions are fun when you've never thought about them before, but at some point and at some age you've BTDT and decided it's an exercise in futility, and your thinking becomes more honed in on that which can be known.

Also, you really are sometimes applying that slippery thinking to dismiss natural selection and astrophysics, which is full-on anti-skeptical (even though you think it's actually being super-skeptical or something. But that's because you don't actually see how similar intelligent design is to Stork Theory, because you don't know how much observable evidence there is for "evolution", etc.)

__________________The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell

I do have a hard time thinking that when someone can convince themselves in believing in something that has been shown to them not to be, that that type of thinking they have to have to do that, does not in some way invade all of their other thinking.

Magical thinking begets magical thinking begets........

Paul

It also gives them a sense of entitlement. "I have God on my side, so I'm always right."

It also gives them a sense of entitlement. "I have God on my side, so I'm always right."

One of the so-called, 10 commandments is over looked.

“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

Which can also be understood as.

"You shall not bear false facts against your neighbor."

Lying for your god isn't to be done.

Paul

__________________For our money "IN WHICH GOD DO YOU TRUST"Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given
Don't accept an answer that can't be questioned - God is SurperfluousA society fails when ignorance outweighs knowledge
Science doesn’t know everything, but religion doesn’t know anythingLife is so horrent and also so beautiful, but without it there is nothing

I live in a large village in the north of Flanders. It's not like the Bible Belt here. There is a large local Catholic Church and about twenty people attend mass on a Sunday. I genuinely do not not know any religious people. I live in a secular society. The only believers that I come across are here. I don't rule out the possibility that some of my friends and acquaintances are closet believers, but as religion is never discussed here because it plays no part in dally life, I don't know. Let's just say that I would bet a large amount of money that none of them believe in a god.

__________________May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey

Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves. - John Muir

People here (Germany) do not talk about religion much, but a good portion are religious nonetheless. They are church members, children get baptised (even if, outside of Christmas, that's the only time anyone ever sets food in a Church .... oh, and for marriages and funerals.) but the lingering belief that there is, in fact, a God is still there.

__________________"Well, the religious community could not just make it up." - JetLeg

Hi Belz, its nice to have a dialogue with someone who engages in the arguments.

I was talking in context, anyway my point was the distinction between mythological thinking and what exists or not outside of it, or human thought.
To separate out the myth from the reality.

Many believers do this, they are not believing in a myth, however it is difficult to refer to what they do believe in without using the mythological language.

Quote:

And now your ignorance of fallacies is showing. It's surprising given how much time you've been posting here. Look up the strawman fallacy on wiki, please, because that isn't it.

It is to deny the distinction above while aware of it.

Quote:

It is if they don't exist, like fairies. How do you know fairies don't exist ?

I know that the fairies of our imagination don't exist, because they are immaterially conceived conceptual constructs. However I would not be surprised if something approximating a fairy does exist somewhere in nature.

Likewise that something approximating a god exists somewhere in nature.

__________________"Here we go again.... semantic and syntactic chicanery and sophistic sleight of tongue and pen.... the bedazzling magic of appearing to be saying something when in fact all that is happening is diverting attention from the attempts at shoving god through the trapdoor of illogic and wishful thinking." - Leumas

This alone shows that your extremely limited knowledge of science should disqualify you from even participating in this discussion. The Big Bang creates time and space. There cannot be anything "prior" to it. The concept of god has no such elegance.

You are jumping the gun here. I am not saying before or where the big bang came from, I realise that it creates time and space. By using the word origin, I am pointing out the issue of what resulted in the big bang. Did it pop into existence or was it pooped into existence. This is a philosophical question, it is beyond the remit of science.

It is illogical for the big bang to have appeared out of nothing. Because it has characteristics and "nothing" does not have characteristics. Plus there are other issues with this.

PS: Oh and by the way, I would probably find it pointless to have a rational discussion with the man you've exemplified, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't "respect" him. Do you believe that you have a free pass to disrespect and insult people and judge them as morons, just because they are delusional about a particular belief, even if they are otherwise good and noble human beings?

Do you automatically respect someone or does he/she have to earn your respect?

Not respecting someone is not the same thing as disrespecting them. The former is a passive attitude while the latter is active.

No it doesn't. There is no necessity to have had an infinite series of big bangs. 1 is sufficient.

It is illogical, of course the reality may well be illogical, there may be only one big bang. But it suffers from being essentially a supernatural event.

Quote:

Because there is no need for an infinite series of the simplest thing. In fact you cannot have something simpler than 'the simplest thing' by definition.

The simplest thing is nothing, if more than nothing exists, logically an endless quantity of other things would exist.

If one big bang happens, then logically it will happen an infinite number of times. Its either nothing or everything, the middle ground is illogical.

Quote:

Now if the argument is that we still haven't bottomed out what the simplest thing is then fine. We can say at least some of what it's not though. A complex superbeing that creates universes being one of those things.

As above the simplest thing is nothing. A complex superbeing is merely relatively complex or simple in respect of something else.

Quote:

No this is faulty logic. If we take what has been observed as evidence (as you did originally) then things that are intelligent and create come after and develop from things that are less intelligent and don't create.

No because we have to allow for regression (which can't be escaped), there is an endless succession of simple and complex things recurring.

Yes the complex intelligent creator is sitting on the back of a turtle, but also is the big bang, or what ever other theory one proposes.

Quote:

More or less exactly what we find in reality. We continue to nibble away at our understanding of simpler and simpler things and push what we don't know about the creation of the universe into a smaller and smaller envelope.

This is a blinkered view.

Quote:

Evidence of humanity is unaware is not evidence. It's speculation at best and fantasy at worst. This sentence is an oxymoron.

Its a fact that humanity's grasp of existence or reality is limited. One should be aware of ones limitations in order to have a balanced realistic view.

No they aren't. I'm not going to keep explaining this. God in Christianity is generally used to refer to Yhwh. Lower case god as a mysterious unknown is not the same thing as the known god of the Bible Yhwh.

I'm sure this is true for you but, in the wider world, god is used rather than God to show disbelief in the existent of god.

Originally Posted by truethat

I've explained this several times. If I say "God" I doubt very much you think I'm referring to Zeus. If I'm talking about Zeus I say Zeus. It is problematic when people are talking about Yhwh and they say God.

It's the same problem in the torah when El and el were confused due to lack of capitalization. I've spent plenty of time explaining it and I'm assuming that you don't have a background in theology because it's a very simple concept and understood easily by those that do.

You're right, I do not have a theological background, my background is the real world. Electronic engineering to be specific. From a theological POV, capitalisation is probably important but, to me, the term god relates to a mythical, non-existent entity, so doesn't require capitalisation. Harry Potter, on the other hand, is known to be a fictional character so his name can be capitalised.

Originally Posted by truethat

So I'm not trying to be difficult in not going into it again.

Let's try this

Some people order a coke in a restaurant when they really mean "a soda" or "pop." They have gotten into the habit of saying coke for all types of soft drinks.

In this case Coke would be different than coke.

I understand what you are saying but think this must be an American thing, as here in the UK people will ask for drinks by their name.

Originally Posted by truethat

Man as used by some philosophers means all of mankind. The word "man" means a solitary man.

Distinctions are important in theological discussions just like anywhere else.

If I say that I have a theory about something, that doesn't mean the same thing as a "scientific theory."

If I say something about "proof" that is not the same thing as a mathematical proof.

Agreed, but most people in this thread are not having a theological discussion, so they are using words in their "normal" usage.

I compared it to ZEUS? A fictional character? You actually need me to spell out to you that I consider Zeus a fictional character in a story?

Yes, I did read what you wrote. You wrote:

Originally Posted by truethat

Zeus and Yhwh are both gods. That is what they are. gods. You see, they exist as gods.

You then wrote:

Originally Posted by truethat

It doesn't make them real. Sigh.

Gods exist as a concept, but you didn't say that, you said they exist as gods. They do not exist at all. Existence implies a physical presence. If something exists it must be observable in some way, either by direct observation or observation of its effect on the Universe.

That's funny. But seriously, though, you know very well what the grammatical rules for names are. So as much as some atheists are so emotional against having anything to do at all with anything those "stupid moron believers" believe in, the whole "not capitalizing God" is nothing but a childish tantrum type of reaction. "I'm not making the effort of hitting the shift key for your stupid 'god' word! Ha!!"

That might be true for some people, but that isn't why I use god rather than God. I simply use it to distinguish between an entity that some people believe exists, but is really non-existent. The names of fictional characters are capitalised because they are known to be fictional characters.

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Which is just a typical symptom of what the real problem is: The Us vs Them attitude which I am so repulsed of. The fact that a lot of atheists give atheism a bad name by perpetuating that arrogant attitude that every single believer must be by definition a complete idiot who's not worth wasting time talking to, because "they'll never learn". But those atheists forget that a lot of atheists were once theists themselves (ex: Sir Richard Dawkins), who then went through a process of reflection on their beliefs and realized that there were better explanations for the questions about the Universe and such.

Some atheists may have this attitude, but I do think that all believers are idiots, although I do struggle to understand how anyone can believe that the universe was created in six days.

I see you ignored my suggestion to look it up and prefer to stay in your ignorance. Why should I even bother talking to you, then ?

Quote:

I know that the fairies of our imagination don't exist, because they are immaterially conceived conceptual constructs. However I would not be surprised if something approximating a fairy does exist somewhere in nature.

Likewise that something approximating a god exists somewhere in nature.

So you're trying to sound reasonable while maintaining your irrational beliefs. How cute.

You are jumping the gun here. I am not saying before or where the big bang came from, I realise that it creates time and space. By using the word origin, I am pointing out the issue of what resulted in the big bang. Did it pop into existence or was it pooped into existence. This is a philosophical question, it is beyond the remit of science.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it, too. If there is no prior, there is no cause, so your quest is doomed to fail.

I see you ignored my suggestion to look it up and prefer to stay in your ignorance. Why should I even bother talking to you, then ?

From Wiki;

Quote:

"The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
Person 1 has position X.
Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[4]
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[3]
Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This reasoning is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position does not address the actual position. The ostensible argument that Person 2 makes has the form:
"Don't support X, because X has an unacceptable (or absurd or contradictory or terrible) consequence."
However, the actual form of the argument is:
"Don't support X, because Y has an unacceptable (or absurd or contradictory or terrible) consequence."
This argument doesn't make sense; it is a non sequitur. Person 2 relies on the audience not noticing this."

To confine God/god to mental fiction, ie equivalent to fairies(position Y), is to ignore the crux of my argument. Which is that God/god represents an entity which may or may not have a real existence in nature independent of mental fictions(position X).

The purpose of this is "This argument doesn't make sense; it is a non sequitur. Person 2 relies on the audience not noticing this."

It looks as though you have nothing to discuss.

Quote:

So you're trying to sound reasonable while maintaining your irrational beliefs. How cute.

I hold no beliefs, I realise that when it comes to questions of existence rationality fails us.